SHALINI SANJEEVI,CHENNAI V. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

ITA 768/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shalini Sanjeevi, who did not file her income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-17. During this period, she purchased immovable property worth Rs.1,00,65,900. The Income Tax Department selected her case for reassessment and imposed penalties for non-compliance with notices under sections 142(1), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were challenged and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but were later contested in the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeals was based on the assessee's absence from India due to compelling circumstances, which was accepted as a reasonable cause for non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633588 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N. ARJUN RAJ
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 273B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ \u0010ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI मा ननीय \u001bी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0010ा ियक सद! एवं मा ननीय एस. आर. रघुना था , लेखा सद! क े सम) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 िनधा =रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Shalini Sanjeevi, 2012 Luz Amor, 233 Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: CNQPS 3409A] Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate JKथH की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member): These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 04.02.2025 and dated 03.02.2025 for Assessment Years 2016-17 in penalty appeals u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act respectively. ITA Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 Shalini Sanjeevi :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income for the AY 2016-17. The information flagged is that during the year under consideration the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,00,65,900/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly an order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed on 13.12.2023 by making addition of Rs. Rs.1,00,65,900/- on account of unexplained investment. During the assessment proceeding notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued three times upon the assessee which were not complied. Therefore, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the imposition of both the penalties. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the both penalties. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee was absent from India continuously on account of compelling reasons/ ITA Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 Shalini Sanjeevi :- 3 -: circumstances which would constitute reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act. He further contended that the issuance of hearing notices during the course of appellate proceedings has been sent to some other mail and not to the email ID as mentioned in the Form No. 35. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR, Ms. Gautami Manivasagam, JCIT has relied upon the impugned orders and pleaded for the dismissal of the both appeals. 6. We have heard the both parties. We find that during AY 2016-17, the assessee was not in India on account of the compelling circumstances, hence assessee had neither filed return of income nor received any notices u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. Therefore, in the above factual matrix, we find afore stated reasons a reasonable cause as enshrined u/s 273B of the Act. Hence, we delete the both penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act. ITA Nos.768 & 769/Chny/2025 Shalini Sanjeevi :- 4 -: 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 10th day of June, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. Raghunatha) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0010ाियक सद! / Judicial Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 10th June, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF "